Bloomington releases annexation trial exhibits, court of appeals case still waiting on transcript
Responding to a B Square records request, the city of Bloomington has produced the exhibits that were admitted into evidence as part of the bench trial on annexation of Areas 1A and 1B, which was conducted in late April and early May of 2024.
The B Square has published the material in the form of a simple list of links to individual files in alphabetical order.
For readers who want to download the whole set, all in one go, a .zip file is available through a different link. The .zip file weighs in at around 4 GB. That’s a big file and will take as long as an hour or more to download, depending on the speed of the connection.
Half of the 4 GB is a high-resolution video with drone footage taken by the city from several different points in the annexation areas, which was shown during the trial. The video was meant to show the judge the extent to which the areas to be annexed were already urbanized.
For the list of links, The B Square has reduced the file size (with corresponding reduction in quality) to 200 MB. (An embedded version of the video is included below.)
Also in the set of exhibits are the transcripts of the depositions, including those of current Bloomington mayor Kerry Thomson and former mayor John Hamilton. (Thomson’s name is misspelled, in a common way, throughout the transcript.)
One focus of questions for Thomson from William Beggs, attorney for the remonstrators, was the value to taxpayers for annexation and the best interest of taxpayers.
The one question that Thomson was instructed by the city’s outside counsel (Andrew McNeil of Bose McKinney) not to answer, based on attorney-client privilege, involved taxpayer value. Here’s that exchange.
BY MR. BEGGS:
Q So my question to you is, Mayor Thompson [sic], what did you determine is the value to the taxpayers of pursuing the involuntary annexation of 1A and 1B?
MR. MCNEIL: Objection. So as the [newspaper] article states, Corporation Counsel was charged with that evaluation and make recommendations. So what you’re asking about now is attorney-client communication. We instruct the witness not to answer.
MR. BEGGS: Very well.
BY MR. BEGGS:
Q Do you refuse to answer based on advice of Counsel?
A Correct.
Here’s the wrap up to a longer exchange about whether Thomson knows the best interest of the taxpayers in the proposed annexation areas.
MR. MCNEIL: That was a long wind-up. Can you just please succinctly state the question that you want her to answer?
MR. BEGGS: Probably not, but I will do my best.
MR. MCNEIL: Thank you.
BY MR. BEGGS:
Q Does the Thompson [sic] Administration contend that it knows the best interests of the owners and residents of 1A and 1B better than the residents and owners of 1A and 1B know their own best interests?
MR. MCNEIL: Objection. Asked and answered.You can answer again.
THE WITNESS: I do not know the best interests of individuals in this annexation area.
A key point of the deposition of Hamilton is how sewer service factors into the city’s future development. From Hamilton’s deposition:
Q So why does the City allow persons outside the City limits to connect to its sewer system?
A A City 205 years old, typically seeks to grow and does grow, and growth really requires generally sewer service in a City to accommodate the density of growth. And so as we grow, we like to offer sewer services to areas that are growing in exchange for them joining the City. We want the City to grow, most of us. We want it to grow with sewer service when it’s technically feasible, and we want that to accommodate regular and consistent growth of the City boundaries.
Q When someone outside the City limits taps into the City’s sewer system, does that provide any benefits for the City?
A By tapping into the sewer system?
Q By connecting to the sewer — let me rephrase. When someone outside the City limits connects to the City sewer system, does that provide any benefits to the City?
A I guess I would say we benefit by having more orderly and managed in dense growth, as opposed to sprawl. And when we connect someone to the sewer system, it helps us accomplish that objective of the City.
Q How so?
A Without a sewer system connection, development will tend to be much less dense and threatening to the environment, and also diminish our ability to manage as a community, where we want to encourage planned, relatively dense growth.
Here’s the location map and the accompanying video:
Litigation nuts and bolts
The lower court case number is 53C06-2203-PL-000509
The judge in the case, Nathan Nikirk, ruled in favor of the remonstrators for both areas, but the city has appealed the ruling. The appeals court case number is 24A-PL-01967.
One measure of the bench trial’s duration, which concluded in early May, is the length of the time that it has taken for the Monroe County court reporter to generate the transcript for the court of appeals. A motion for an extension in the allowable time has been filed and granted by the court of appeals. The transcript is now due on Oct. 30, 2024.
